Nicheing and panning and EQ, oh my!

[Taylor Davis]

So, I'm recording HALLELUJAH, you know; that lenny cohen tune,

I got my levels set and ready to go.

I like to "map out" my arrangement and also map out the way i'm going to record.

I've found that nicheing along with smart panning will allow the listener to hear all the elements. nothing gets drowned out.

Would you niche the track as you record or wait for post production?

 

I have cubase on me other machine and i am looking for a VST for this machine that will perform the same function as the effect in cubase.

the eq effect has a number of presets that niche the tracks for you.

then you can tweak the frequencys even more.

 

would you have the same tracks in two different frequencys?

 

could you stack the tracks into very small niches?

 

would you want any bleed over?

I have usually put the drums on the bottom and the vocals in the mids and highs the guitars in mid and high freqs. other variations too.

would you want to niche each track drums, guitar, vocals, keys, second guitar, second voc ect.. into a seperate freq niche?

thanls!

TD

[the stranger]

 

Would you niche the track as you record or wait for post production?

 

 

If you mean wait for the mix, than yeah I'd wait until the mix. Post production to me usually means mastering/etc, so I may be in lala land.

 

I usually do stuff that is super dense and I do all sorts of eq, panning, and other tricks to get everything it's place. But, I usually wait until I'm done tracking and do the serious placement in the mix stage. I'll tweak and whatnot as I'm going along, but it isn't until you have all the pieces that you can get the big picture.

[the stranger]

Or I just make it up as I go.

[Lee Knight]

I'm not familiar with the term "niche" in this context. Can you explain?

[Magpel]

notch?

[Taylor Davis]

 

I'm not familiar with the term "niche" in this context. Can you explain?

 

 

I ain't really a freak about freqs but i'll try to splain mesef'.

 

like, lower frequencys are all about bass tones and higher freqs are all about mids and highs in the EQ spectrum.

 

so if you want the bass guitar to stand oot you push it over off center or back in the mix a few degrees and lock it into a lower freq and assign that level setting for that track?

 

then push the drums a little further off center or further back and assign a different freq range sperate from the bass guitar track?

 

have the vocs forward or more center panned if not dead center pan or in front and niche that freq range into maybe mids or high apart and seperate from the other freq ranges.

so one freq does'nt step on the other and muddy the sound.

 

DO you want a little bleed over? allow the freq numbers to overlap on some but not other tracks?

 

or keep it sterile and seperate?

 

in cubase there is a vst eq dealio that has presets: low, mid midhigh and high which you can then tweak even further to narrow the freq bands.

 

I'm looking for freeware i can add to my NTRACK program to achieve this effect like in cubase.

 

I was wondering just how narrow you would make the bands of eq freqs and if you need a set amount or range to hold the depth of sound.

 

is this what a twelve band eq would do?

in cubase it's four bands.

what about two or more seperate freq ranges for each track?

 

that could be a lot of Bands of eq.

 

whats a normal or average number of eq bands for a given project.

[Lee Knight]

I'll tell you the most powerful tool. The fader. Before you go panning things and eq'ing to find the perfect spot. Take a while to balance. That is the real magic. The real art. Balance.

 

Even try one speaker mono to train yourself. Balance makes a track. In thinking in these terms, you tend to track your instruments differently from the start.

 

You start making choices early on like, "Maybe I don't need a FFFAAATTT bass after all." Or "Maybe that acoustic guitar doesn't want all that shimmer. Let's try a different mic."

 

Start there and your end product will be better. Then the panning and eq are just basic tools to get you a little closer to there.

 

That's my take, anyway.

[blue2blue]

Your basic idea, making sure that the sounds of different elements don't conflict or mask each other by trying to give them their own 'space' in the stereo spread as wel as in the frequency spectrum is a good general principle but you'll be best served by a subtle approach to your use of EQ. As to your question, yes, some overlap is to be expected. Most instruments have a rather broad range from fundamentals to most significant overtones. There is going to be some overlap. What you want to do is minimize conflicts by placing elements in the stereo sound stage with an ear to giving them their own space, and then, where necessary, perhaps to use some sensitive EQ choices (with an emphasis on cutting not boosting, for the most part) to help ease any conflicts that panning couldn't.

 

 

And to take a lateral pass from Lee... his point is a really important one -- but also remember that faders move... there's no reason that your faders should not follow the mix, helping to 'orchestrate' by subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) allowing shifting dynamics to put the spotlight on different elements at different times.

 

That can be one of your best tools for creating a dynamic mix with real momentum.

[Taylor Davis]

yeah I've larned to trust the faders rather than my ears cause faders don't lie.

I've lost some precision in my ears after a few too loud concerts and jams.

 

if they say its leveled out then i go with that. I try to get/keep everything balanced then niche and pan or pan and niche accordingly.

 

so what about that eq preset niche tool.

any suggestions?

 

thanks for lettin me share

TD

[Lee Knight]

Well... you might be misinterpreting my use of the word balance. I'm not referring to L/R balance, but rather, that illusive "perfect" balance of levels. Kick, snare, keys, background singers, lead voice, guitars... all into the right balance for you.

 

So "niching" as your calling it, I assume would be simply using eq to have the various elements play nicely in a track. And you're looking for an eq with presets then? Am I understanding you? How can a preset eq curve know how fat of a bass you tracked? How would it know how strident or mellow the lead vocal is?

 

But with balancing the faders... you say faders don't lie. You must be referring to that L/R balance, cause faders don't tell you much unless you're a stickler for tracking at consistent levels. Still, the ear is king.

 

Now fader as eq. Want more lo end? Turn up the bass guitar. Want more highs? Crank those strumming acoustics a bit. See what I mean by the fader as eq.

 

You could use a freq analyzer to better see/hear your tracks. It's a great leaning tool and one I use a lot. Look at your guitar and see you really have a lot of 80Hz... and would that be stepping on the bass? This kind of stuff can really train you.

 

As far as the tool you're asking about... frankly, I'm lost. Sorry.

[blue2blue]

 

yeah I've larned to trust the faders rather than my ears cause faders don't lie. I've lost some precision in my ears after a few too loud concerts and jams. if they say its leveled out then i go with that. I try to get/keep everything balanced then niche and pan or pan and niche accordingly. so what about that eq preset niche tool. any suggestions? thanks for lettin me share TD

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that, Taylor. Are you kidding around?

 

Obviously there are a number of factors to how faders (real or virtual) sit in relation to each other: the original tracked level, the level of the trim pot being the biggies.

 

(There are some folks who use a rather upside-down method of gainstaging an analog board, setting the level in the mix with the trim pot, so that all the faders are then at unity gain for the mix. This is bad gain staging practice and may likely mean greater noise levels, but these folks feel like there is some form of mixing advantage to having all the faders at unity. It can potentially mean that you've mapped the throw of your slider pot across a smaller dynamic range, so any fades or gain-riding one does with that fader will have, in a sense, greater precision. But -- really -- if mixer designers thought you should mix with the trim pots, the trims wouldn't typically be tiny knobs out of way at the top of the channel strip but rather would look more like the slider pots we usually use as faders. But there may well be times when a hybrid approach will lend greater flexibility or control in a low level instrument that, nonetheless, must be finessed.)

 

 

I'm afraid there's not much way around mixing with your ears. Those of us with hearing damage do often develop strategies in order to mitigate the effects. Everything from using reference mixes (to 'calibrate' our expectations) to using graphic spectral analyzers to look for potential problems outside the (diminished) frequency range of our hearing.

 

But as much as these tool can help, ultimately, you have to use your ears to 'oversee' the whole process, it seems to me.

[Jotown]

I thnk Taylor means shelving.

[Lee Knight]

I thought maybe notching?

[Synonym Music]

 

I was wondering just how narrow you would make the bands of eq freqs and if you need a set amount or range to hold the depth of sound. is this what a twelve band eq would do? in cubase it's four bands. what about two or more seperate freq ranges for each track? that could be a lot of Bands of eq. whats a normal or average number of eq bands for a given project.

 

I work with 4 to 10 band EQs most often, but I only use a high number of bands when cutting dissonant harmonics. I boost with wide Qs and cut with narrow Qs (I remember seeing some adaptive parametrics that do this for you?) The gain or attenuation is also very important; a -18dB cut @2500Hz is considerably different from a -6dB cut at the same frequency with the same Q. Sometimes you can only get rid of a peak so much before things start sounding phasey and thin.

 

I leave more overlap if the music is more organic, less if its more artificial or has a large number of tracks, though dictating strict frequency ranges via EQ is going to sound awfully fake no matter the music. On sample layers it's better to grab a filter than over-EQ and waste all that processing power.

[dave-G]

 

I'll tell you the most powerful tool. The fader. Before you go panning things and eq'ing to find the perfect spot. Take a while to balance. That is the real magic. The real art. Balance.

 

Well said!

 

And Taylor, there's also the wisdom right there in your own sigfile:

"If it ain't broke, it don't need fixin'"

 

I'd suggest you think first about balances, and even use panning to help your tracks find space, then look to your equalizers to sweeten individual sounds, or remedy any conflict where you've got too much built-up in one area of the mix, or to enhance separation/contrast where it makes musical sense!

 

-dave

[UstadKhanAli]

What kind of DAW has an "eq preset niche tool"?

 

This thread is the most Walteresque thread I've seen since...well, Walter.

[Lee Knight]

What kind of DAW has an "eq preset niche tool"? This thread is the most Walteresque thread I've seen since...well, Walter.

 

The same thing crossed my mind yesterday but I figured I'd jump in and ignore that possiblity.

[blue2blue]

Well... you have to remember that Taylor is Arell Spencer.

[halljams]

I seems the trick is to look mostly at the pictures on the screen. Look for good evenness of the wave with not too many spaces.

The blue, green and yellow waves are always the ones that should be the loudest.

Reddish ones the quietest. If you have a black one then that track should be muted.

Then yeah, you are right on track with the faders being key, just try to get them all even or at least in a flowing kinda line, much like you do on your guitar tuners.

 

For Eq the best EQs are the ones that you can see a picture on. Make the line going across tilt in a way that suits the music, listen, then start tweeking, i'm sure you have heard this before.

If you have an analogue type EQ you can use a ruler to move the little slider things, or if you feel creative a plastic ball or dog toy(these are my personal favorite), be gentle but make your point.

On the computer you can download one of those things that makes your mouse into the shape of a dog toy or ball or Pistol, what ever, Pro audio is actually what those things were designed for.

 

On to compression, don't compress. This is all a joke to sell gear, don't fall for it, just wiggle the line trim knob around till the red light comes on then back it off by 5.9 db, don't go 6 or you won't get any compression, 5.5 min.

 

As for verbs and delays etc, man what can anyone say. Presets are so good now on everything but it all sounds the same right? Digital!

I suggest using a guitar amp. This is the much better because it's analogue and you can adjust the tone and gain too, so simple but everyone misses this trade secret. If you want delay just run the signal to the amp then track it back into the multi-track with or with out verb and delay it then, you can tune the tone and distortion etc(actual good idea).

 

But vocals are the thing that separates the men from the boys right, here is the secret......

Don't have any.

 

Panning- it has been clearly established that the drums go wide and the bass and vocal fall dead middle. The guitars should be left and the keyboards right. Percussion 30% L/R and BU vox 50% L/R.

If you do any different you will be ridiculed.

 

Mastering- All you have to do is run the full mix to the L3. If you don't have one, steal one then crank it hard to get it as loud as about the last Judas priest album and that should sell you some records.

Good luck. Happy mixing.

[Synonym Music]

 

I seems the trick is to look mostly at the pictures on the screen. Look for good evenness of the wave with not too many spaces. The blue, green and yellow waves are always the ones that should be the loudest. Reddish ones the quietest. If you have a black one then that track should be muted. Then yeah, you are right on track with the faders being key, just try to get them all even or at least in a flowing kinda line, much like you do on your guitar tuners. For Eq the best EQs are the ones that you can see a picture on. Make the line going across tilt in a way that suits the music, listen, then start tweeking, i'm sure you have heard this before. If you have an analogue type EQ you can use a ruler to move the little slider things, or if you feel creative a plastic ball or dog toy(these are my personal favorite), be gentle but make your point. On the computer you can download one of those things that makes your mouse into the shape of a dog toy or ball or Pistol, what ever, Pro audio is actually what those things were designed for. On to compression, don't compress. This is all a joke to sell gear, don't fall for it, just wiggle the line trim knob around till the red light comes on then back it off by 5.9 db, don't go 6 or you won't get any compression, 5.5 min. As for verbs and delays etc, man what can anyone say. Presets are so good now on everything but it all sounds the same right? Digital! I suggest using a guitar amp. This is the much better because it's analogue and you can adjust the tone and gain too, so simple but everyone misses this trade secret. If you want delay just run the signal to the amp then track it back into the multi-track with or with out verb and delay it then, you can tune the tone and distortion etc(actual good idea). But vocals are the thing that separates the men from the boys right, here is the secret...... Don't have any. Panning- it has been clearly established that the drums go wide and the bass and vocal fall dead middle. The guitars should be left and the keyboards right. Percussion 30% L/R and BU vox 50% L/R. If you do any different you will be ridiculed. Mastering- All you have to do is run the full mix to the L3. If you don't have one, steal one then crank it hard to get it as loud as about the last Judas priest album and that should sell you some records. Good luck. Happy mixing.

 

You just made this thread the twilight zone.

[halljams]

 

You just made this thread the twilight zone.

 

 

It was already there man.

[Gus Lozada]

Well... you have to remember that Taylor is Arell Spencer.

 

[Ernest Buckley]

 

So, I'm recording HALLELUJAH, you know; that lenny cohen tune, I got my levels set and ready to go. I like to "map out" my arrangement and also map out the way i'm going to record. I've found that nicheing along with smart panning will allow the listener to hear all the elements. nothing gets drowned out. Would you niche the track as you record or wait for post production? I have cubase on me other machine and i am looking for a VST for this machine that will perform the same function as the effect in cubase. the eq effect has a number of presets that niche the tracks for you. then you can tweak the frequencys even more. would you have the same tracks in two different frequencys? could you stack the tracks into very small niches? would you want any bleed over? I have usually put the drums on the bottom and the vocals in the mids and highs the guitars in mid and high freqs. other variations too. would you want to niche each track drums, guitar, vocals, keys, second guitar, second voc ect.. into a seperate freq niche? thanls! TD

 

 

Hey TD-

Lots of thoughts going on in your post. From my experience, what really started to improve my mixes were the following:

 

1. Instead of adding frequencies that I want more of, I take out the frequencies I don`t want. Sort of like reverse EQ`ing... this adds immediate headroom to mixes.

 

2. I pretty much take out any frequencies in every instrument below 250hz with the exception of the kick drum and bass. Its amazing how much this opens up the low end and lets those two elements come through. Bass lives in the 80hz region where the kick is more in the 110-135hz so I will pinpoint their respective sweet spots and focus on that for some time to get that thump going in the track.

 

3. I will often record two individual tracks of the same part and to answer your questions, yes, I will EQ them differently. For some reason I always put brighter instruments leaning towards the right of the stereo field... no reason for it except it feels right.

 

4. You didn`t get into compression much but this to me is such a vital element because it has such a dramatic effect on how we hear things. Giving each instrument its space using panning is important but there is also the attack of an instrument to consider. For example, if the song is guitar driven, I will put a slow attack and fast release on the guitars so I get more bite from them. The release is very important to the rhythm of the song because it will either release the sound before the next beat kicks in or it will hold over the next beat. So it depends on the rhythm of that part and how you want it to affect the feel of the song overall.

 

The other thing I`ve learned (and this has taken me many years) is restraint. For most tunes, the use of panning, eq and compression is to be used sparingly. Its amazing how dipping 500hz by 1db and boasting 2.5 by 1db in the same track can dramatically change the essence of the entire song. Years ago I mixed by added frequencies on every track. This not only led to overall bright tracks but it completely killed the desire to go back and listen to it again. Subtle tweaks make for interesting listening and a desire to return to the song. (Listen to some of your favorite records and you`ll probably find that they ALL have a common element to them. Mimic them.)

 

As for any pre-packaged EQ/COMP plugin settings.... I steer away from all that. Each instrument and song is different so start with your levels at zero and make small adjustments. If you recorded the tracks accurately, then EQ, panning and compression in post production is not over the top because you already got what you needed up front. To me post production is more about smoothing things out on a larger scope than pulling out tweezers and chiseling away here and there.

 

Lastly, as Lee stated, switch to mono occasionally while mixing. This will reveal any weak spots. My best mixes come from mixing in mono at very low levels on a $20 Radio Shack speaker. So much for high end Genelecs...

[Taylor Davis]

 

Hey TD- Lots of thoughts going on in your post. From my experience, what really started to improve my mixes were the following: 1. Instead of adding frequencies that I want more of, I take out the frequencies I don`t want. Sort of like reverse EQ`ing... this adds immediate headroom to mixes. 2. I pretty much take out any frequencies in every instrument below 250hz with the exception of the kick drum and bass. Its amazing how much this opens up the low end and lets those two elements come through. Bass lives in the 80hz region where the kick is more in the 110-135hz so I will pinpoint their respective sweet spots and focus on that for some time to get that thump going in the track. 3. I will often record two individual tracks of the same part and to answer your questions, yes, I will EQ them differently. For some reason I always put brighter instruments leaning towards the right of the stereo field... no reason for it except it feels right. 4. You didn`t get into compression much but this to me is such a vital element because it has such a dramatic effect on how we hear things. Giving each instrument its space using panning is important but there is also the attack of an instrument to consider. For example, if the song is guitar driven, I will put a slow attack and fast release on the guitars so I get more bite from them. The release is very important to the rhythm of the song because it will either release the sound before the next beat kicks in or it will hold over the next beat. So it depends on the rhythm of that part and how you want it to affect the feel of the song overall. The other thing I`ve learned (and this has taken me many years) is restraint. For most tunes, the use of panning, eq and compression is to be used sparingly. Its amazing how dipping 500hz by 1db and boasting 2.5 by 1db in the same track can dramatically change the essence of the entire song. Years ago I mixed by added frequencies on every track. This not only led to overall bright tracks but it completely killed the desire to go back and listen to it again. Subtle tweaks make for interesting listening and a desire to return to the song. (Listen to some of your favorite records and you`ll probably find that they ALL have a common element to them. Mimic them.) As for any pre-packaged EQ/COMP plugin settings.... I steer away from all that. Each instrument and song is different so start with your levels at zero and make small adjustments. If you recorded the tracks accurately, then EQ, panning and compression in post production is not over the top because you already got what you needed up front. To me post production is more about smoothing things out on a larger scope than pulling out tweezers and chiseling away here and there. Lastly, as Lee stated, switch to mono occasionally while mixing. This will reveal any weak spots. My best mixes come from mixing in mono at very low levels on a $20 Radio Shack speaker. So much for high end Genelecs...

 

 

Big Ern: Thanks for your generous input.

I do a lot of what you've stated.

What would be ideal is to have a hands on demonstration of a mix. Watch, look, listen and learn. I'd very much to sit down and watch(and listen) step by step to these processes.

I get some of what you're stateing BIG ERN, yet I'm a bit fuzzy on the rest. I feel I need to watch and hear a pro do some of these things. I know I can get it if I can really understand the thought process involved.

Thanks again for your timely input and to you all, the combined knowledge on this forum is staggering to say the least.

I have learned so much because of all your advices and input. Thanks to all and two thumbs up!

TD